Can't see future, but if Dems don't get in WH this election, will there...

[patricia92243]

ever be another chance.

Will we be a one party nation?

Will another party arise - someday - and take the place of the defunct Dems.

I'm talking 25, 50, 100 years from now.

Nobody knows, of course. But I thought it would be interesting to just guess. In view of the media we have today - and didn't have in the past - it is hard to guess the future based on past history.

We are facing a brave new world. I'm scared>

[Goldom]

1. If Bush has another 4 years,

it WILL be the end of democracy. Elections will be cancelled, rulers appointed. I have no doubt. That's why I support ANYONE who has a chance of beating him. Even if they're only slightly better than him, NONE of the Democratic candidates will destroy the country the way Bush is going to. If we don't like them, we can vote them out in 2008. If Bush wins this year, there will not BE an opposition party in 2008.

[david_vincent]

9. I don't think elections will be cancelled

After all, this image is everything. Elections will be held, but they'll be rigged. And there will still be an opposition party, but it will be spied upon, infiltrated, and subverted. In fact, we're probably being subjected to surveillance right here at DU.

[YouMustBeKiddingMe]

2. Good reason to be scared

We are very close to turning into a one party nation if we don't win this next election.

[Maat]

4. I completely agree.

But I can't stop fighting for democracy because I have a daughter. They say Karl Rove stated he has always been about one-party domination. How can a person be for that and love our country?

[unblock]

3. the real question is:

is even THIS election another chance?

by that i mean, even if a democrat wins the presidency, the republicans will no doubt still run the supreme court, the federal courts, both houses of congress, half the governorships, and so on.

plus they continue to control the media. the will crucify any democrat worse than clinton, and most likely our guy won't be as deft as clinton in deflecting the muck.

it's hard for me to imagine a demcoratic presidency as accomplishing much beyond slowing the tide....

[Maat]

5. Issue-orientation...

I have decided that no matter what happens....I will continue to fight for the issues/goals I believe in.

[Mairead]

20. "slowing the tide"

I think it depends on which Democrat. Clinton sold us out, let's be clear about that. He willingly presided over changes that LBJ would have fought tooth and nail. Hell, he presided over changes that Nixon might well have fought.

So if we choose another Clinton --or Carter, who focussed on rearranging the deck chairs-- then yes, it'll be a 'slowing the tide' at best. At very best.

But if we pick an LBJ or an FDR, then I think it'll be a different story. An activist president, vigorously turning over rocks and revealing to everyone what's really going on, demanding real change....

That would be a different story.

[ronzo]

6. Well, I'd like to point out.....

That the Democratic canidates collectively have pulled in more money than bush. And we've seen record turnouts in the Dem primaries. And! the WH is in such a tizzy that they feel they have to put jr. on meet the press.

Roosting, I tell ya!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

7. It's WAY sooner than you think: Read this

America as a One-Party State
Today's hard right seeks total dominion. It's packing the courts and rigging the rules. The target is not the Democrats but democracy itself.

By Robert Kuttner
Issue Date: 2.1.04
Print Friendly | Email Article

America has had periods of single-party dominance before. It happened under FDR's New Deal, in the Republican 1920s and in the early 19th-century "Era of Good Feeling." But if President Bush is re-elected, we will be close to a tipping point of fundamental change in the political system itself. The United States could become a nation in which the dominant party rules for a prolonged period, marginalizes a token opposition and is extremely difficult to dislodge because democracy itself is rigged. This would be unprecedented in U.S. history.
In past single-party eras, the majority party earned its preeminence with broad popular support. Today the electorate remains closely divided, and actually prefers more Democratic policy positions than Republican ones. Yet the drift toward an engineered one-party Republican state has aroused little press scrutiny or widespread popular protest.

We are at risk of becoming an autocracy in three key respects. First, Republican parliamentary gimmickry has emasculated legislative opposition in the House of Representatives (the Senate has other problems). House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas has both intimidated moderate Republicans and reduced the minority party to window dressing, rather like the token opposition parties in Mexico during the six-decade dominance of the PRI.

Second, electoral rules have been rigged to make it increasingly difficult for the incumbent party to be ejected by the voters, absent a Depression-scale disaster, Watergate-class scandal or Teddy Roosevelt-style ruling party split. After two decades of bipartisan collusion in the creation of safe House seats, there are now perhaps just 25 truly contestable House seats in any given election year (and that's before the recent Republican super gerrymandering). What once was a slender and precarious majority -- 229 Republicans to 205 Democrats (including Bernie Sanders of Vermont, an independent who votes with Democrats) -- now looks like a Republican lock. In the Senate, the dynamics are different but equally daunting for Democrats. As the Florida debacle of 2000 showed, the Republicans are also able to hold down the number of opposition votes, with complicity from Republican courts. Reform legislation, the 2002 Help America Vote Act (HAVA), may actually facilitate Republican intimidation of minority voters and reduce Democratic turnout. And the latest money-and-politics regime, nominally a reform, may give the right more of a financial advantage than ever.

Third, the federal courts, which have slowed some executive-branch efforts to destroy liberties, will be a complete rubber stamp if the right wins one more presidential election.

Taken together, these several forces could well enable the Republicans to become the permanent party of autocratic government for at least a generation. Am I exaggerating? Take a close look at the particulars.

http://www.prospect.org/print/V15/2/kuttner-r.html

Then tell me you're all going to sit home in November if it isn't to your exact tastes.

[david_vincent]

8. "A Depression-scale disaster"

We're heading there.

[Piperay]

17. The rethugs have been working

on this for along time and now they have almost achieved everything they have ever wanted. :scared:

[Mairead]

21. And they've done it with the help of the 'Democrats' in Congress

Let's fachrissake not forget that! The idea that electing people with (D) after their names is going to magically fix things is a delusion, a product of dangerously shallow thinking. There are damned few Ds who demonstrably give a damn for anything beyond their continued personal wellbeing.

Let's stop lying to ourselves! Let's demand some real changes, for a change!

[Hippo_Tron]

10. I don't believe in the military dictatorship theory...

If Bush wins re-election but I think he can do some VERY SERIOUS damage to our country and our constitution should he be re-elected and thus I'm ABB.

[tobius]

13. Diebold Democracy

could be the order of the day. If that doesn't scare you how about regional "health quarantine's". Military dictatorships and martial law can be implemented in many creative ways.

R U :scared: I am

[rucky]

11. If We Lose, We need to shift sharply to the LEFT

make the opposition voice stronger. could get ugly, but so could years of Republican rule.

are you with me?

[YouMustBeKiddingMe]

12. If we lose, there will be a giant sucking sound to the right

And the left will have no voice for many, many years to come.

[Sam Lowry]

14. Relax, Patty

You sound like a lot of Republicans during the Clinton years.

[corporatewhore]

15. Have you ever heard the theory that the dem party acts as a pressure valve

and it keeps the people in check from not trying to cause any real upset to the situation

[Praline]

23. Yes.

We are their 'bread and circuses'.

[zoeyfong]

16. I'm not really worried about losing, frankly, I can see some up sides to

losing. I have no doubt that history is and has always been moving in the direction of increasing liberalization, overall. It would be nice if it was a smooth, non-stop progression, but occaissionally the forces of backwardness get the upper hand, and liberals must stop and regroup and re-strategize. This may be one of those times; we have been on a losing streak for a while, and it appears that this year the dem leadership strategy is to try the same old same old again. If it fails, that may be the impetous for dems from the leadership on down, to take a hard look at how this party is run. Personally, I think the days of automatically moving to the 'center' to get votes are over; it is time for liberals to stand up for and forcefully articulate the case for their positions. It is time to start bringing America to us, instead of shamelessly chasing the latest opinion polls.

[ringmastery]

18. this is nonsense talk

were elections cancelled and the democratic party abolished with 8 years of reagan and a 49 state landslide in 1984?

The republican party was left for dead after Nixon in 1974. They came back.

We'll come back, eventually.

[Mairead]

22. Most people don't want to settle for 'eventually'. 'Eventually' doesn't

mean much if you're dead when it happens.

[bowens43]

19. IMO

Yes, there will be another chance in 2008.

In all but name we're pretty much a one party nation now.

Hopefully another party will arise. Hopefully several new parties will arise , spanning the political spectrum. We were not meant to be a 'two party' country.